Of Mandrakes and Dogs: Myths, Medicine and Medieval Phylogeny

Juergen Wastl & Danielle Feger submitted 24/01/2016 for peer review at http://www.voynich.ninja/index.php doi: 10.6084/m9.figshare.2067033

This paper summarises and reviews the identification of a plant in f25v of Beinecke MS408, the ‘Voynich Manuscript’ (VM), from various sources. Based on additional detail, we improve and refine the identification of the plant illustration of f25v and follow up with discussing the particular relevance of this plant in medieval times. A comparative analysis of contemporary illustrations of mandrake plants in medieval manuscripts highlights the difficulties and variances of plant images in herbals and bestiaries. Following from that, based on the tradition of three available ‘main streams’ of text accompanying the plant illustrations, we discuss potential text blocks from classical mythology, magic, medicine and folk tradition and provide ideas and conceptions of new image-text linked analyses.

1 Introduction

1.1 History, Myths & Magic of Mandrake The origin of myths around Mandrake is difficult to trace. It is clear, however, that Mandrake was a focus of superstition and belief in magic for many centuries (1). The bible (Song of Solomon 7:13; Genesis 30:14ff) describes a plant with the name ‘Dudaim’ that is associated with Mandrake according to its use in relation to fertility. Other citations are multiple e.g. as ‘Moly’ (Homer), ‘Baraa’ (Flavius Josephus’ Jewish Wars VIII:6,3) and in the Natural History of Pliny and De Materia Medica of Dioscorides where it was known as Circaeon (after the mythical sorceress Circe). The history of Mandrake is highly divers and widespread (Central Asia, Himalaya, Greece to name a few (2). It is difficult to differentiate the myths around Mandrake from its description in traditional medicine. The use as aphrodisiac, hypnotic, sedative, narcotic, painkiller etc is described vividly through the ages. Towards the end of the medieval ages, the description of Mandrake changed to demonic characteristics culminating in Hildegard of Bingen’s demonic picture of Mandrake in her ‘causae et curae’ in the 12th century CE (3).

1.2 Mandrake illustrations and text in classical and medieval manuscripts As outlined above in the case of Mandrake, plants, their parts and contents were of diverse importance to mankind throughout all times. Until the late 18th Century CE, plant ingredients were the main source for medicine and potions. In order to keep and maintain knowledge of these plants, notes were kept for subsequent generations (text and images). Unlike some philosophical texts, a number of classical sources on plants were known throughout the medieval ages - most famously De Materia medica by Dioscorides (1st century CE), an encyclopedia of approximately 600 plants and derived medicines and recipes thereof. The oldest known illustrated copies include the ‘Vienna’ Dioscorides (composed in Constantinople, early 6th Century CE) and the ‘Naples’ Dioscorides (in Greek early 7th century CE). Noteworthy is a sudden increase of a diversity in medieval note keeping on plants and their features (Herbals, Kräuterbücher, bestiaries) around the 14th Century CE with the diversity expanding even further with the printing press in the late 15th Century CE. The 15th to 17th Century CE has been described as ‘Age of the Herbals’ (4). Descriptions of plants and their characteristics were not restricted to their anatomical-botanical details and medicinal characteristics; many myths that were linked to plants were written down next to the plant illustration.

2 Analysis

2.1 Scope and objective: For this paper we chose Mandrake (Mandragora spec) for the following reasons: 1) Relevance and use, particular history (see above), 2) Identification of a new relevant detail in the plant image f25v in VM 3) Availability of comparative analyses independent of current Voynich studies and activities

2.2 Review: What Voynich Manuscript folios have been associated with Mandrake? A good source and overview of the description of plant details is provided on the web portal of Rene Zandbergen (5). Supplemented by searches on Voynich blogs and websites (6, 7 and others) we summarise in Table 1 the plants that are postulated to be Mandrake (by folio and researcher) as well as all suggestions and identifications proposed for the plant depicted in f25v. Mandrake is .... F25v is...

folio name of researcher Plant name of researcher

f25v J. Petersen (9) Mandrake J. Petersen (9) N. Pelling (10) N. Pelling (10) & WR. Greetz (11) & WR. Greetz (11)

f44r E. Sherwood (12) Plantago anon. Finnish botanist (17)

f95v1 D. Voigt (13) Dracaeba cinnabari D. O’Donavan (18)

f95v Peter (14) Woad (Isatis tinctoria) E. Sherwood (19)

f100r L. Martz (15) Leontopodium, J. Petersen (20) D. Scott (15) Edelweiss, Plantago

f101r M. Dunn (16) Plantago lanseolata Steve D. (11)

Dracaena D. Scott (21)

Table 1: Summary of postulated Mandrake identifications in VM. Bibliography contains relevant quotes and text Table 1 highlights the difficulty of clearly identifying individual plants in VM. The variety and different suggestions and identifications highlight the difficulties in exact identifications of plants in illustrations in medieval manuscripts. This is not unique to VM studies; it is also known from other illuminated manuscripts where plants can't be identified although either text or plant names are shown beside the plants (22). The description of f25v in above mentioned web portal by Rene Zandbergen (5) has the following details: Plant apparently without flower (but difficult to see). Has a cute tiny little dragon eating from the bottom leaf. Text in one paragraph.

This as well as all other proposed suggestions in Table 1 don’t take account of a detail that seems to have been generally neglected in f25v: It doesn’t mention the leash or cord that connects the animal (in the lower right of the folio f25v) to the top of the root area of the plant (see fig 1).

Fig 1: Entire f25v (23, left) and detail (right) focusing on the animal linked via a leash to the top of the root. The detail image (right) was digitally enhanced (saturation, brightness, contrast)

Based on these details we suggest that the plant in f25v is Mandrake and discuss in particular the leash, the animal, the position of the animal in the folio and where the leash is attached at the plant and the animal.

Multiple illustrations of Mandrake in medieval manuscripts exist that display this particular feature attached to the plant (see inset plant illustrations in text below for reference). Not only is a leash or cord visibly attached to both plant and animal, but also the position in the lower right of the illustration on the respective folio seems very common. In the final paragraph we will compare and discuss these details in connection with medieval sources. In the following we will analyse the depiction and history of Mandrake during the ages from classical times to the late medieval period.

2.3 Tradition of Mandrake illustrations and text in classical and medieval manuscripts It is important to note that we focus on Mandrake only and won’t discuss the tradition of entire manuscripts here. Mandrake was first mentioned in De Material Medica and the oldest surviving illustrations are in the MS Dioscorides (512 CE, Vienna Nationalbibliothek, cod. med. gr.1) and Naples MS Dioscorides (7th Century CE, inset right). Both not only mention the medicinal use (Dioscorides introducing in this context the word for anaesthesia) but also contain anecdotes and myths around the plant, e.g. comparing the root with humans because of the tuberous form. Dogs were also mentioned in connection with the harvest of mandrake roots. Although dogs are part of the narrative, apparently no illustration of the dog was illustrated with the plant.

Illustrations of a dog appear only later in illuminated manuscripts in the medieval ages where the dog also was chained to humanlike depictions of mandrake (see sketch left, copied from 24). The motif of a dog leashed to the plant depicts the superstition and myth related to the safe harvest of the roots to is used in later manuscripts. Interestingly, the joint depiction of male and female mandrake plants is kept.

A second main stream of plant illustrations with accompanying text are Herbals that arose in the medieval ages.Their text and images were usually mechanically copied from earlier works of the most varied provenance, drawing upon the traditions of both the classical and Arab civilisations. The contents, however, were images with often shortened text blocks (for more practical use) and integrated with glosses and personal observations by the successive owners, who introduced additions and corrections that were based on their respective experience: Examples comprise ms. 106 in the Botanical Library of the University of Florence, ms. 1591 in the Museo Provinciale d’Arte di Trento, and ms. 1161 of Joppi Library in Udine (25). These manuscript consist of a series of botanical drawings executed in a markedly geometrical fashion, the artist sometimes incorporating anthropomorphic elements. Next to the Italian Herbals a strong German tradition arose: Most important example is Johannes Hartlieb’s Kräuterbuch (Book of herbs) of 1462 which is an extract from Konrad von Megenberg’s Buch der Natur (Book of nature) written a century earlier in the German language (transcription first line (German): ‘Mandragora heisset alrüne’; f289v, Konrad von Megenberg: Buch der Natur, 26) Hartlieb’s subject is plants, mostly herbs, and their medical uses. What makes the Kräuterbuch special is the side-by- side presentation of text and images. The high cost of such a richly decorated book makes it unlikely that it was actually used by doctors or pharmacists of the time. The botanical imprecision of the 160 pictures, in any case, would have made identification of particular plants in nature difficult.

Late in the 15th century another new type of book including plant illustrations appeared (with the advent of the printing press): Books of health (Hortus Sanitatis) were natural encyclopedia style collections depicting plant species and their medical uses and recipes on how to use them. These books (e.g. Jacob Meydenbach, 1491, based on a German Herbarius) were published in languages other than Latin (which was common for Herbal style collections) and their prime use was medical practice and recipes. Many of the plants Meydenbach describes are immediately recognisable, however he included some, Mandrake amongst them, where imagination has taken over:

The mandrake, in truth, has a near magical ability to relieve pain. Its wrinkled forked root, however, was believed to represent a man. Furthermore, if it was pulled up it would emit a shriek so appalling that it would kill the collector. Meydenbach provides the solution: the collector should take a dog with him and tie its lead to the plant. Then, after stopping his ears to shut out the lethal shriek, he should beat the dog so that it flees and so pulls up the root (27).

Mandrake depictions usually were anthropomorph (particularly the root) and the plant-human hybrid displays fruit (see inset from Mandrake from hortus sanitatis (1498) It will be discussed later how this compilation of these different, main text traditions through the medieval ages may help in analysing the text in VM.

2.4 Comparative analysis of Mandrake illustrations Botanically, Mandrake belongs to Solanaceae and was included in a phylogenetic analysis (28) that analysed a selection of Solanaceae species in a set of medieval manuscripts. We extend on that experimental analysis and compare f25v in more detail with a selection of Mandrake illustrations from other sources. Variations as well as common features in plant illustrations may narrow down a common ancestor of f25v with known Mandrake illustrations (see tab 2). A first glance at the images reveals that depictions of mandrake in medieval sources are not very accurate. This is not unusual as illustrations were produced based on the use (in case of Mandrake most likely the root) or only as a aid-memoire. However, if we were to define and distinguish clusters of Mandrake images, this would be a definite gain and could help narrowing down, or at least excluding, sources of plant illustrations used as original. It remains to be seen if that image based analysis has a potential impact on identification of a common source for the adjacent text. (NB: We are aware that we can’t exclude that the text is totally different and independent of the plant illustration). We will now take a closer look on the type of mandrake depictions and try to evaluate wether the potential source for the Mandrake illustration in VM can be narrowed down: Table 2 provides a

Voynich Fuchs Cod. MS LJS46 MS Vienna Latin Ms Manuscri (Neu Pal. (f16r) Ashmole 2644 6822, Hébreu pt (f25v) Kreuterbuc germ. Harley 1431 (f40r) (f77v) 1199 h, cap. 311 4986 (f. (f31r) (f22v) 201) (f289v) 44r)

plant details root stem leaves

fruit no no no yes yes yes yes yes yes

year (15th 1543 1455/60 11/12th ca 1520 ca. 1070 1390-1400 15th 15th century)? century -1100 century century

Anthroid no no yes yes yes yes yes no yes -face no no yes yes no yes yes no yes -human no no yes yes yes yes no no yes -male no no yes yes yes yes no no (yes?) -female no no no no no no no no (yes?)

animal yes no yes yes yes yes yes no yes -dog yes no yes yes yes yes yes no yes dragon no no no no no no no no no -nknown (no) no no no no no no no no -none no yes no no no no no no no

chained/ yes no yes yes yes yes yes no yes leash

position lower right no lower lower right middle left right lower right no lower left animal right

other no no no no yes no yes no yes humans

Table 2: Visual comparison of f25v with a selection of Mandrake illustrations. Various details that are important in the context of identification of Mandrake are compared and the presence was evaluated with either yes or no. detailed analysis of the illustration of f25v VM with other illustrations from medieval sources and categorises the new identified features by yes/no. Most common is the presence of a dog that is connected to the Mandrake with a leash. Interestingly, the position of the dog almost always is to the lower right of the plant with the exception of one image where a man is depicted as well (shifting the dog to the left). Fruit is often prominently displayed apart from f25v and Fuchs (1543) where it seems not to be an obvious feature. Another interesting characteristic is that once a dog is displayed in connection with a Mandrake illustration, the mandrake always has human features. Most commonly it is the root that is in a humanly shape, human or a human head. The dog is ALWAYS chained to the plant. The position of the end of the leash/chain or cord though varies at the Mandrake end (top of the root or the ‘feet’ of the anthropomorph root) but in all dogs’ cases it is on the dog’s neck. Close inspection of the end of the leash on the animal in f25v indicates that it is tied to the tail. We discuss this relevant detail later in another context.

2.5 Dog or dragon? No other animals (dragon or mythological figures) have been postulated with mandrake as far as we know. Depiction of a dog with Mandrake is the most logical assumption because of the mythological roots (i.e. Mandrake harvest with the help of dogs) based on classical sources (Flavius Josephus, see Introduction). Nick Pelling (2002) came to the same conclusion and suggested a dog in f25v, although the back then low quallity of the image led him to no firm conclusion (10). Previously a dog was suggested for the animal in f25v by Marnix Hoekstra, although in connection with a different Plant identification (29). Could the animal in f25v be a dragon instead of a dog? Zandbergen (5) described the little animal as dragon. Would that be a potential confusion with other plants and a misidentification, or are there any other ms where dragon and dogs are displayed simultaneously (with proper plant identification)? There is an example at UPenn LJS46 (23) with a dragon and a dog in the same manuscript where only the dog is chained to Mandrake (and the dragon to a different plant). This is not a striking exclusive point, however, it is our believe that this still provides additional confidence that VM f25v is a joint depiction of a dog and Mandrake. Besides, this manuscript (23) has several other ‘root creatures’ which resemble those in Voynich (although this is not part of this paper and investigation). The question if the animal is a dog or a dragon cannot be answered with full confidence, however, illustration of plants and animals in medieval manuscript can be very difficult to identify for a variety of reasons - leading to the following discussion of our findings.

3 Discussion

3.1 VM f25v and the tradition of plant illustrations Plant illustrations in medieval sources such as manuscripts, codices and in particular herbals often cannot be clearly identified. Describing illustrations of artemisia plants, Pavord (30) states: “Toward the dawn of the 13th century, many ... herbals evinced an improvement in quality — in the materials used to make them, in readability, in clarity of the illustrations. Once area where quality didn't improve was accuracy.“ Citing these illustrations of artemisia plants, Pavord further writes, “The more beautifully designed the images, the less relationship they bear to the plants they are supposed to represent. . . . The roots drift elegantly out of frame, the flower heads are geometric, stylised triangles, the junctions of the stem are rendered as golden clasps."

This trend holds certainly true for plant illustrations in VM. The lack of accuracy has been mentioned frequently elsewhere, also in connection with the Voynich Manuscript. However, based on previously unrecognised details in image f25v (as described in this paper) the authors would like to propose a refinement for the plant illustration in f25v as Mandrake: The leash (new detail 1) tying the dog to the root of the plant in f25v and the positioning of the dog (new detail 2) are details that are characteristic for Mandrake plant illustrations in medieval manuscripts. These new details (1 and 2) in combination with the position of the other end of the leash tied to the top of the root (detail 3) re-affirm the id of mandrake after visual comparison with other illustrations (cf. Mandrake illustrations in Table 2, or for more sources of mandrake in particular see the dedicated browser as an excellent source of imagery (31) .

These previously undescribed details and the combination thereof shed new light on f25v and lead to a better understanding and clearer identification of f25v as Mandrake thus improving the current identifications and suggestions (see Table 1). A comparison with other Mandrake illustrations as suggested above leads to the question: Why does VM f25v Mandrake lack other prominent plant characteristics of botanical (e.g. display of fruit) or mystical (anthropomorph male/female root) origin? Part of the answer may be either (1) a general lack of knowledge (or interest) of the illuminator that led to the missing accuracy in plant depictions or (2) the fact that the plant is depicted in a different stage of growth or at a different season: The lack of botanical - anatomical features in the case of f25v has already been discussed by an anonymous Finnish botanist for the example of Voynich f25v: The botanist (suggesting Plantago for f25v, see Table 1) explains for the case of f25v that this may be a young or hibernating stage of the plant (32) : “You get completely different images of a given species if you paint it in different ages or seasons of the year. E.g. 25v (above) is a credible picture but seems to represent a young or hibernating leaf rosette of a plant, thus making it difficult to identify the species. Similar problems will be encountered with very old plants.“

Based on image details considered so far, we believe that to be a compelling case for Mandrake in f25v.

Further lines of investigation could be conducted based on another imagery detail that also has not been noted so far: The leash has been tied to the tail of the animal (new detail 4, Fig 2). Assuming the true identification of mandrake in f25v, this would be the first time a depiction of the chain/leash in mandrake illustrations does not link to the neck but the tail of the dog (see Fig 2; cf Tab 2). This is an interesting detail, as it is neither in the illustration nor in the mythological tradition and accompanying textual tradition for this magical-medicinal plant. However, Mandrake harvest and in particular the danger to people’s life while uprooting the plant have been described in other texts and sources, where the leash is tied to the tail of the dog. The sources identified so far go back to German sources where Mandrake is called Alraune (see plant name diversity later): For example Brother Grimm’s fairytales contain the leash at the dog’s tail (33). Assuming f25v to depict a ‘Mandrake-dog’ couple this would be the first depiction of this particular folk tradition.

3.2 Diversity of Plant names For Mandrake in particular, there is a plethora of names that complicates the text analysis: Next to variants based on Mesopotamian origins, Greek incl Pythagorean (34), French etc several German names exist (most common: Alraune). Historic text sources (and most likely the VM) were produced before Linnean nomenclature was available and in case of Mandrake there was a general belief (around the Mediterranean) that there were two mandrake species: based on Dioscorides/Pliny as male (white, Madragoras mas) and female (black, Mandragoras femina). The accuracy of plant illustrations only improved with the herbals of the 16th Century (see Fuchs) where more details were displayed, however, name confusions can still not be excluded either: In the Mandrake case, there is a particular and verified example of a name confusion with Eggplant (35). The (common) German name Alraune has already been mentioned. The root of the name and other instances differ significantly (Alrauenmennle, etc) but can be traced in literature and text - not just for medicine. Goethe’s Mephisto announces in Faust (Faust II, Erster Akt, V. 4977 ff.) „Da stehen sie umher und staunen, Vertrauen nicht dem hohen Fund, Der eine faselt von Alraunen, Der andere von dem schwarzen Hund“

The magic and myth around Mandrake obviously was widespread and not limited to Germany but also Greece, China, Czech Republic and other countries. In Armenia the myth of a black dog unrooting mandrake is still alive and captured in folk songs (36): Is it possible that the text next to the plant in f25v describes a regional myth? It certainly cannot be excluded. Other possibilities may include the narrative of a spell (based on Mandrake) that were known: Early versions include that of Pliny the Elder or, later, Shakespeare’s Juliet (in Romeo and Juliet, Act IV Scene III): Alack, alack, is it not like that I, So early waking, what with loathsome smells, And shrieks like mandrakes torn out of the earth, That living mortals, hearing them, run mad—? Could knowledge of the content of the text next to the plant a provide a new angle of analysis in VM studies? There is a possibility that the text has no relation to the illustration, highlighting a general difficulty with the VM. However, in the Mandrake case we would like to take advantage of the multiple available text sources and suggest to initiate a text-based analysis. Classical and medieval text have been analysed using phylogenetic tools to identify the tradition of a particular manuscript, copy errors, folio ordering errors etc. An excellent example is provided by Chris Howe in the analysis of Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales (37). We suggest to extract the text, then compare the texts after transcription (and translation) to narrow down the source and potentially identify a common theme or thread. We described in the introduction the tradition and main streams of medicinal, botanical texts associated with Mandrake (and its illustrations) and provide here one example depicting male and female versions of Mandrake (38) with a transcription and translation (first paragraph)

Questa erba mandragola altabassa nel scorsa idem est Et This mandrake plant above/below and on the previous page Sono di due ragioni cioe maschio et femina et sono ciascuna Are (said to be) in two types, that is male and female and they are both Di natura fredda et seccha come e la [scorza?? In which case the previous example?] della sua Cold and dry in nature, [unclear] its [the female mandrake] Radice e stupefactissa (??) et fa dormire la mandragola femmina Root can stupefy and send to sleep. E molto sadopera nelle medicant fredde (per) fare dormire And many know – in ‘cold medicine’ how to use it to cause sleepiness La mandragora femmina fa la sua foglia grande XXX all consolida The female mandrake makes its big leaf xxx once it is mature Maggiore o alraforma verde et fa il suo resto xxxx apriamo sopra or in green and makes the rest ……… it opens high above La terra et in alto et fa seme xxxx cioe mele gialle et nostre xxxxx The soil and makes seeds xxx that is yellow apples and our gardens Alpestos et prats et luoghi opari cioe ombrose et humidj et ancho fa un On Xxx [might be dug ground] and lawns or similar, that is shaded and moist, Orti xxx cela pone danaggi [bit of a logical guess!] assai uno le terreno sabbionoso xxxpetroso Gardens which may cause some problems are sandy or stony La sua foglia e disapore dolce come la [might be bietola?] comeste erba assia xxxx The plant’s leaf is sweet tasting, like [beetroot?] like this plant, it is quite…[unidentifiable] Et ha molte virtu e piu il maschio che la femina And it has many virtues/qualities, the male plant more than the female. Fig 3 Preliminary transcription and translation of text in f73, Italian Herbal (39) .The authors gratefully acknowledge Nicola Jones for her transcription and translation of the first and second paragraph. Paragraphs are framed, respectively. Transcript and translation of first paragraph is displayed, the second paragraph is in the bibliography.

The text starts with a botanical - anatomical description followed by a description of medicinal use and a recipe for preparation. Classical sources and quotes (Isidore and Albertus Magnus, Avicenna, Dioscorides and Aristotle) could be a first choice for future in-depth text analysis. Interestingly, Flavius Josephus (who introduced the dog in the text tradition of Mandrake that led to the depiction of a dog in illustrations) is not mentioned or cited at all in the analysed text fragment.

Other examples for early text analysis include MS Harley4986 f.44r (Pseudo-Apuleius Platonicus, De medicaminibus herbarum liber, (40). The Pseudo-Apuleius-type herbals link to Dioscorides with also a strong link to the Pliny the Elder tradition. The distinction in alpha and beta branches of herbals can also facilitate the selection process in connection with image comparison of f25v with existing mandrake illustrations. A further example from the Pseudo-Apuleius branch of Herbals is f34v De herbarum medicaminibus (41) These two are of particular interest because of the texts are short and of similar length as the one in f25v). It remains to be seen if these texts exhibit a common baseline for further investigation. Other useful results may be obtained by analysing the vocabulary (e.g. as shown above, the Italian herbal transcript for Mandrake describes the qualities derived from the four elements). We are unaware of dedicated frequency analysis for the botanical section in the VM, however, an in-depth analysis could reveal interesting results.

3.3 Synopsis

We suggest narrowing down the text sources: Based on available text sources (15th Century CE) we can exclude book of health-related texts (Hortus Sanitatis), that do not start before late 15th / early16th century and are mostly in print format. Furthermore, comparison of Mandrake in f25v with those of the Hortus Sanitatis tradition reveals that there are no common features between illustrations. Above mentioned herbals, representing the descendents in the tradition of Dioscorides, could be a first choice for text based analyses because of the similarity in imagery and of quotations in the literary tradition (Isidore, Albertus Magnus, Avicenna): These texts go back to the herbal tradition of Megenberg, which only contains plant anatomical features and their medicinal use. This stream of text sources does neither include mythology and magic nor folk traditions. This could prove valuable because exclusion of magical or mythical text traditions is difficult to trace: the distinction between medical description and mythical superstition is difficult to draw, in particular for medieval texts (42). A good and exhaustive example is Hildegard of Bingen’s ‘causae et curae’ that discusses a variety of uses and features of Mandrake (43), focussing on the devilish characteristic of Mandrake.

Another line of enquiry is based on ‘whole’ herbal phylogenies (44,24; Fig 4). Plant-image based analysis can lead to narrowing down a branch (and/or a potential location) of a common ancestor of f25v in the tradition of Mandrake illustrations.

Fig 4 Phylogenies of Herbals (Pseudo Apuleius tradition) including timeline and geographic location (44,24)

Work on a phylogenetic tree of Mandrake illustrations is currently in progress. Assuming the adjacent text relates to herbals in the tradition of De Materia Medica by Dioscorides or Pseudo- Apuleius, then some interesting facts could be further investigated. A blogpost by Stephen Bax (45) discusses the ‘punctuation problem’ for the text in f25v (inset). He also refers to the single appearance of what looks like the arabic numeral ‘2’ in f25v: Observation of the original text suggests that the singe character which has been transcribed as ‘s’ (in ‘s okeeaiin’ line 2) does not look like other characters transcribed as ‘s’. but rather resembles the Arabic numeral ‘2’, so it could in fact be a number for a following ingredient. However, this possibility requires more translation of the underlying language in order to evaluate it fully (45) The red circle shows ‘2’ (see inset). Assuming ‘2’ to be a numeral, this could be a reference to the two forms of Mandrake (male and female). However, this is less likelyjudging by the illustration of Mandrake in f25v (i.e. just one mandrake). Alternatively, it may be a reference to one of the quotes (Avicenna book nr 2; cf transcription second paragraph, 39). Following on from that, one may investigate the frequent use of EVA daiin (highlighted in yellow, 45) as indicator to ,or meaning of, ‘reference’, book or libro (due to the high number of quotes for classical sources as shown above in the case of Italian Herbal Mandrake). Highly speculative, however, we believe this type of combined text-image analyses could be of value when narrowing down potential text sources.

Thorough text analysis, based on phylogentic methods, could be integrated with a new line of investigation by anchoring the imagery identification of other plant illustrations based on, or starting with, f25v Mandrake, i.e. comparing plant illustrations, that occur before or after f25v in VM, with other herbals and manuscripts. However, care must be taken when comparing various plant illustrations across several folios: The original order of folios in the VM is not certain. The point of quire numbering and order was already raised by Nick Pelling in connection with identifying plants in the Voynich Manuscript (46).

Summary

With this paper we provide an improved view on the plant illustration of f25v as Mandrake whilst reviewing existing suggestions and identifications. Based on new emerging details at the level of plant illustration, we provide examples of potentially new lines of investigation into the combined/ linked imagery-text analysis. Bibliography

1) Ungricht, S., Knapp, S. and Press, JR (1998): A revision of the genus Mandragora (Solanaceae). Bull. not. Hist. Mus. Land. (Bot.) 28(1): 17. https://archive.org/stream/ bulletinofnatura28natulond/bulletinofnatura28natulond_djvu.txt

2) plenty of books and reviews are available e.g. Carter, AC. (2003) :Myths and Mandrakes, J R Soc Med. 96(3): 144–147; web searches with Mandrake and geographic regions will reveal several good points of entry into priamry and secondary literature

3) http://www.gardnerian.de/pflanzen/alraune.htm

4) Mans, DRA (2013): From forest to pharmacy: Plant-based traditional medicines as sources for novel therapeutic compounds. Academia Journal of Medicinal Plants 1(6): 101-110; doi: 10.15413/ajmp.2013.0117

5) Zandbergen, R.: http://www.voynich.nu

6) Pelling, N.: www.ciphermysteries.com

7) Bax, S.: https://stephenbax.net/

8) Rene Zandbergen: http://www.voynich.nu/q04/index.html#f25 accessed 05/01/2016 22:24 GMT

9) Petersen, J. http://voynichportal.com/tag/mandrake/ To the bottom right is a creature that could be interpreted a number of ways. It might be a dragon or other critter nibbling on a leaf or it might be the proverbial dog pulling out a mandrake plant to save its master from harm....Animal: It’s tempting to see this as a scaly dragon, or cross between a dragon and a turtle, especially since we don’t know to what extent the VM author is teasing the reader with clues that are clarified by reading the text. It’s also possible it’s an oddly rendered symbolic dog, pullling out a mandrake plant, especially since the plant itself resembles the mandrake and the creature appears to have paws rather than claws or hoofs.Looking at it again, however, it could also be seen as a sheep and the scalloped shapes that appear to be scales might be whorls of fuzzy wool. It’s difficult to tell if the lower limb is another leg or a fuzzy tail. If this is a sheep, it’s hard to explain the paws, since sheep have hooves. Perhaps a better understanding of the plant can reveal more about the enigmatic creature.

10) Pelling, N. http://voynich.net/Arch/2002/01/msg00039.html Am I missing the point, or does the "dragon" on f25v probably represent a dog (admittedly a particularly badly-drawn one) pulling up a mandrake root (roughly as per the medieval myth)? Looking at the Copyflo print of the page, I can just about make out some structural similarities with mandrake - hairy roots, big & generally pointed leaves, etc - but the low quality makes me acutely uncomfortable about making a positive identification beyond that.

11) Greetz, WR. (via Blog by Ellie Velinska) http://ellievelinska.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/the-voynich- manuscript-plant-id-list.html AnonymousSeptember 5, 2013 at 1:44 AM Suggestions: 8v = cloves 25v = mandrake Greetz WR Holland

Ellie VelinskaSeptember 5, 2013 at 11:24 AM Hi WR, Greetings to Holland! If you zoom in fol. 25v you will notice that under the green paint the leaves have this parallel lines that go all along the length of the leaf. For the artist to spend time and ink to draw them it must have been important detail. Some proposals include Plantago Lanseolata (from Steve D) and Dracaena (from Dana Scot). I haven't made my mind on this one, yet. Edith Sherwood has the mandrake for fol. 44r. I haven't worked on that one yet.

12) Sherwood, E.: http://www.edithsherwood.com/voynich_botanical_plants/plant.php?id=47 Woad (Isatis tinctoria), is a flowering plant of the Cabbage family. It has been cultivated throughout Europe (edith Sherwood “ Woad (Isatis tinctoria), is a flowering plant of the Cabbage family. It has been cultivated throughout Europe, especially in Western and Southern Europe, since ancient times and was the only source for blue dye available until the end of the sixteenth century. In Medieval times, Tuscany in Italy was one of the centers of woad cultivation. The dye was used to dye textiles, and the illustrator of the VM may have used a woad-based pigment for blue paint.”

13)Voigt, D. (12/10/15): 95v1 (text/name based suggestion) Mandragora (Mandrake) https:// stephenbax.net/?page_id=419

14) Peter (20/9/15) F95v (text/name based suggestion) Mandrake https://stephenbax.net/? page_id=419

15) Martz, L.; Scott, D.: http://www.voynich.net/Arch/2002/12/msg00008.html

16) Dunn, M. (26/07/2013): f101r (bottom right) http://www.ciphermysteries.com/2013/07/23/a- visual-map-of-voynich-evidence-theories-people#comments

17) Anonymous Finnish Botanist (S. Bax blog) https://stephenbax.net/?p=460 (table entry for f25v): ...To sum up, my primary guesses as to habitus would be Plantago, then Arnica, then a number of others, but the image is not solved.

18) O’Donavan, D: http://www.ciphermysteries.com/2013/07/23/a-visual-map-of-voynich-evidence- theories-people#comment-272949 (Diane on July 26, 2013 at 1:34 pm said:) For example, some years ago I identified the subject of f.25v as Dracaeba cinnabari (the Soqotran plant). In some older sources, the same plant is called D. cinnabaris. Thanks to the other researchers kindness, I learned that this identification almost agreed with earlier proposed identifications as Dracaena draco, the western dragonsblood tree, Dracaena draco). These days, I think we are probably both right, but for that folio I still think D. cinnabaris is the focal species. It would be nice to know that others agree – but you don’t say which folio you mean.

19) Sherwood, E.: http://www.edithsherwood.com/voynich_botanical_plants/plant.php?id=47 Woad (Isatis tinctoria), is a flowering plant of the Cabbage family. It has been cultivated throughout Europe (edith Sherwood “ Woad (Isatis tinctoria), is a flowering plant of the Cabbage family. It has been cultivated throughout Europe, especially in Western and Southern Europe, since ancient times and was the only source for blue dye available until the end of the sixteenth century. In Medieval times, Tuscany in Italy was one of the centers of woad cultivation. The dye was used to dye textiles, and the illustrator of the VM may have used a woad-based pigment for blue paint.”

20) Petersen, J.: Leontopodium, Edelweiss, Plantago ; summarised on Zandbergen website ( http://www.voynich.nu/extra/herb_oldid.html )

21) Scott, D.: http://www.voynich.net/Arch/2002/02/msg00069.html ... I believe that I have a pretty good understanding of why the plant drawing in f25v is such a wonderful example of the type of herbal specimen that one would hope to find in the VMS. This plant is a species of the genus Dracaena,..; http:// voynich.net/Arch/2002/01/msg00039.html I forwarded you a copy of the e-Mail that I sent out last year concerning the little dragon in f25v which I believe is most likely a Basilisk. I do not think the plant is mandrake; however, it may indeed be a poisonous plant. Thisis actually a rather difficult plant to identify since there are so many possible matches. I keep thinking about it every now and then and will no doubt get back to investigating it again sometime this year.

22) MS408 folio 25v, retrieved from http://brbl-dl.library.yale.edu/vufind/

23) U PEnn LJS 46 Roots pictures http://upennmanuscripts.tumblr.com/post/118285533380/ upenn-ljs-46-illustrated-herbal-creature-roots accessed 09/01/2016 9:45 GMT and http:// openn.library.upenn.edu/Data/LJSchoenbergManuscripts/html/ljs46.html

24) Singer C. (1927): The Herbal in Antiquity and Its Transmission to Later Ages. The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol.47(1):1-52. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/625251

25) e.g. Hertensis,a 9th century herbal; Theatrum sanitatis MS 4182 folio 73 (14th century), Latin 9333 folio 37(15thcentury);Français12322 folio 180v, ca. 1520–1530 ; and up to the 17 th century, for example, in a Turkish manuscript,Supplement turc 1063, dated 1685, folio 17v . A miniature of Nouvelle Acquisition Latine 1673 folio 85 suggests the aphrodisiac effects of mandrake. These illustrations reflect the coexistence of botany, magic, and whimsy combined with imaginative flights of fancy by herbal illustrators.

26) Johannes Hartlieb: Kräuterbuch Cod. Pal. germ. 311, Konrad von Megenberg: Buch der Natur; http://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/cpg311/0590

27) Ortus sanitatis (Inc.3.A.1.8[37]) http://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/PR-INC-00003- A-00001-00008-00037/1

28) Paris, HS., Daunay, MC. and Janick, J (2009). The Cucurbitaceae and Solanaceae illustrated in medieval manuscripts known as the Tacuinum Sanitatis . Ann Bot. Vol 103(8): 1187–1205. doi: 10.1093/aob/mcp055

29) Hoekstra (S. Bax blog) https://stephenbax.net/?p=741 The ancient Greeks identified two different plants as ‘houndstongue': Cynoglossum spp. and Plantago spp. They knew that dogs could heal wounds and infections by licking them. That may explain the name. The primary name for Plantago however was ‘arnoglosson’ which means ‘lambstongue’.The Voynich plant in f25v resembles Plantago lanceolata, so the creature could be a dog or a lamb.I still think it’s a dog, drawn by an Arab artist who was not familiar with dogs, because dogs are uncommon in Islamic countries. Later European copyists didn’t recognize the drawing as a dog and just copied it as it was.

30) Pavord, A. (2005): The Naming of Names, Bloomsbury, USA, ISBN 1596910712

31) http://mandragore.bnf.fr/jsp/classementThema.jsp (via Ellie Velinska 18/09/2015 https:// stephenbax.net/?page_id=419

32) Anonymous Botanist, guest blog (Bax, S. https://stephenbax.net/?p=741) You get completely different images of a given species if you paint it in different ages or seasons of the year. E.g. 25v (above) is a credible picture but seems to represent a young or hibernating leaf rosette of a plant, thus making it difficult to identify the species. Similar problems will be encountered with very old plants.“ 33) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alraune_%28Kulturgeschichte%29

34) Daunay, MC., Laterrot, H. and Janick, J. (2008): Iconography and History of Solanaceae: Antiquity to the 17 Century. In Horticultural Reviews, Vol.34, Edited by Jules Janick, ISBN 9780470171530 https://hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/pdfs/c01.pdf (page 8)

35) (https://hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/pdfs/c01.pdf (page 33)

36) Arakelova, V. (2014): The Onion and the Mandrake: Plants in Yezidi Folk Beliefs. Journal of Persianate Studies 7 (1) 149-156 (doi 10.1163/18747167-12341269)

37) Spencer M, Bordalejo B, Wang LIS et al. (2003): Analyzing the order of items in manuscripts of the Canterbury tales. Computers and the Humanities: 37(1):97-109 doi: 10.1023/A: 1021818600001

38) Italian Herbal, TR F Herbal, Special Collections, University of Vermont Library, http:// cdi.uvm.edu/collections/item/mrmc002 (accessed January 09, 2016)

39) Nicola Jones: Transcript and preliminary translation of f73 (38): Mandragola secondo ysidoro 17 libro etymologiaxx ha odore non piacevole el sapore al The mandrake, according to Isidore (Bk 17 ‘Etymologia) has an unpleasant smell and a taste Quanto schifo. Ma alberto magno 6 libro vegetabilium concordante con avicenna libro Which is just as unpleasant. But Alberto Magno (Bk 6 ‘On vegetables?’) agrees with Avicenna Book 2 che la mandragola tiene ymagine dhuomo cioe xx la radice della maschia man- 2, that the mandrake looks like a man, that is the root of the male mandrake Dragola tiene mascia forma e la radice della femina tiene feminan forma Looks like the male form, and the female root, looks like a female. Etam diastoride dixe che la mandragola era di due spetie cioe maschio e femmina At the same time, Diastoride (Dioscorides?) says that the mandrake is of two species, that is male and female El maschio ha la foglia biancha simile alla bretola o la lastugha e intagliata la femina The male has a white leaf, like that of the [bretola] or the [this might be lettuce] and it is intertwined/ twisted. The female A la foglia xxxmose et non e intagliata et e piu bruna che la foglia del maschio Has a [prob. a colour?] leaf, and isn’t intertwined, and is darker than the male leaf Et la sua radice e di fiorji alquanto bruna e dentro e biancha. Experimentatores And its root and its flowers are quite dark, and inside white. Experimenters [I assume this is not a name, because the verb is plural] Dicono (che?) la foglia della mandragola maschio si debbe dare alla donna laquale Say that the leaf of the male mandrake should be given to women who Naturalmente non concepet se noi desideriamo havere figliuolo mascio perche Cannot conceive naturally, if one wishes to have a male child because La foglia della mandraghola femina genera femina Posto che lo experimentatore The leaf of the female mandrake will create female children. It appears that the experimenters dice (che) non crede che lerbi possa ingenerare. Ma bene crede chella possa gio- say that they don’t believe the plant can create children. But it is believed that it can vinare a molti xxx della matrice onde essendo poj la matrice sana allora bring youthfulness to the mother, and with the mother therefore in a healthier state, e piu atta a generare figluolj di astoride et Avicenna dice li 2 che la xx she is more able to produce children. Astoride [Aristotle?] and Avicenna say [in Bk 2] that xx dice della mandraghola cotto in vino e data bere vale a moltj malorj del corpo say that mandrake cooked in wine and drunk is very useful for many bodily illnesses perche e stupefactuissa e tolge il dolore… because it is a sedative and takes away pain…

40) http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=Harley_MS_4986 )

41) http://orka.bibliothek.uni-kassel.de/viewer/image/1357143974502/69/

42) Kieckhefer, R (1989): Introduction: Magic as a Crossroads in: Magic in the Middle Ages, Canto Edition (2000), Cambridge University Press, Canto Edition (2000) ISBN 0521785766

43) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alraune_%28Kulturgeschichte%29 (German) and https:// www.gtfch.org/cms/images/stories/media/tk/tk69_2/Giebelmann1.pdf (German)

44) Howald, E. and Sigerist, HE. (1927): Antonii Musae de herba vettonica liber. Pseudoapulei herbarius. Anonymi de taxone liber. Sexti Placiti liber medicinae ex animalibus. Corpus Medicorum Latinorum, 4 (Leipzig-Berlin), p. viii https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-Apuleius#/ media/File:Howald-sigerist.png

45) Bax, S: https://stephenbax.net/?p=940 accessed 22/01/2016 22:15 GMT

46) Pelling, N. (2006): The Curse of the Voynich, CompellingPress, ISBN 0955316006